Age + Sexual discrimination
Discussion
I finally picked up a copy of the Road Craft (The police driver's handbook) earlier today after reading the topic in the general gassing forum.
I was reading the first chapter and some comments were made regarding the fact that young drivers and male drivers were at higher risk of causing an accident.
Now this suddenly reminded me of all the problems when I'm trying to get insurance... I'm male and I'm young (in relation to the type of cars I drive).
Anyway, surely with all the leftism that's going on at the moment, I have a case for sexual discrimination and sexism by my insurance company.
Have their been any court rulings on this type of subject in recent history?
I was reading the first chapter and some comments were made regarding the fact that young drivers and male drivers were at higher risk of causing an accident.
Now this suddenly reminded me of all the problems when I'm trying to get insurance... I'm male and I'm young (in relation to the type of cars I drive).
Anyway, surely with all the leftism that's going on at the moment, I have a case for sexual discrimination and sexism by my insurance company.
Have their been any court rulings on this type of subject in recent history?
It is young, male drivers who make the most claims. I see no reason why I, and those my age and sex, should pay for young males inability to control their hormones. The fact is that you are much, much more likely to have an accident, and one where there is considerable damage, if you are male and young. The least likely to have an accident per mile driven is the middle aged male - that's me. I don't want my premiums to reflect youngsters' inability to see a hazard until it's in the middle of their bonnet.
You see here's the problem.
I'm a perfectly safe driver, I've been on the road for 10 years (+ in various forms of racing for 19 years
) and I've never been in an accident. I just don't like being put in pigeonhole with other young male drivers, why should I suffer?
It's basically the prejudice, sweeping generalisation that insurance companies make that I disagree with. Obvioulsy, the whole system would grind to a halt if insurance companies had to make individual assesments for each of their clients, so I'm really just banging my head against a brickwall.
Anyway, as has been discussed many times on this board before, they're all crooks, just after our money.... oh hold on, I've just made a sweeping generalisation of insurance companies!
I'm a perfectly safe driver, I've been on the road for 10 years (+ in various forms of racing for 19 years
) and I've never been in an accident. I just don't like being put in pigeonhole with other young male drivers, why should I suffer?
It's basically the prejudice, sweeping generalisation that insurance companies make that I disagree with. Obvioulsy, the whole system would grind to a halt if insurance companies had to make individual assesments for each of their clients, so I'm really just banging my head against a brickwall.
Anyway, as has been discussed many times on this board before, they're all crooks, just after our money.... oh hold on, I've just made a sweeping generalisation of insurance companies!

Unfortunately, they make an assessment based on their experience of similar candidates. If they know that the probability is higher that a claim will be made, then they have to charge more. These people aren't in business to lose money by paying out more than they take in, so it's inevitable...
There's an incentive to accummulate no-claims discount!
(Note - I am in no way happy either, having just coughed over £1,000 to insure a Metro for a provisional licence... but I do see the reason, looking back on what I was like at 20...)
There's an incentive to accummulate no-claims discount!
(Note - I am in no way happy either, having just coughed over £1,000 to insure a Metro for a provisional licence... but I do see the reason, looking back on what I was like at 20...)
haggishead said:
Unfortunately, they make an assessment based on their experience of similar candidates. If they know that the probability is higher that a claim will be made, then they have to charge more. These people aren't in business to lose money by paying out more than they take in, so it's inevitable...
There's an incentive to accummulate no-claims discount!
(Note - I am in no way happy either, having just coughed over £1,000 to insure a Metro for a provisional licence... but I do see the reason, looking back on what I was like at 20...)
I remember the reverse problem on some consumer program, OAP were complaining that travel insurance was higher for them. Of course it was, they are more likely to be ill/die than the average younger person, there was complaint after complaint, but they also thought cheaper car insurance was fair as they were less likely to have an accident.

women only insurance companies are strange - my ex girlfriend was insured with Diamond (women only policy) and yet they were only too happy to add me as a named driver to the policy. Admittedly she was the main driver (it was a Vectra and I like to DRIVE a car) but it's still odd I think.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff



